Skip to main content

Whatever happened to free speech?

I've just re-read Carl Sagan's excellent The Demon-Haunted World (amazon.co.uk or amazon.com) - it's mosty about science as a 'candle in the dark' of illogical beliefs. At the end he speaks out powerfully on the subject of free speech. It strikes me both with the Simon Singh libel case (now, thankfully, decided in Simon's favour) and all the things we're not allowed to say, in case it causes offense or incites people to riot, that we're heading very much in the wrong direction.

Sagan points out that 'within certain narrowly circumscribed limits - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous example was causing panic by falsely crying "Fire!" in a crowded theatre - great liberties are permitted in America.' He cites examples like burning effigies of the President, devil worship, a purported scientific article or popular book asserting the 'superiority' of one race, praising people like Hitler and arguing that religious groups (or masons) are plotting to take over the world.

He refers to John Stuart Mill from On Liberty, saying that silencing an opinion is a particular evil. If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth, and if it's wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth 'in its collision with error.' If we know only our side of the argument, we hardly know even that; it becomes stale, soon learned only by rote, untested, a pale and lifeless truth.

Perhaps the strongest argument was from that greatest of American founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson. He's quoted as writing 'A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.'

Wise words.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sonam Sen14 May 2010 at 07:00

    Perfect solution for obesity workshop india, overweight workshop india

    & fitness solutions india

    Perfect solution

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more